EVE Search - Goons 4x4ing through the Sandbox

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Goons 4x4ing through the Sandbox

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 48 post(s)
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 10:51:00 - [1] - Quote I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up. But this has happened before http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=626 the result was POS's blown up and accounts permanently banned. As they have stated "As clearly stipulated in our rules and policies, exploiting is strictly prohibited. In our Suspension and Ban Policy there is a special clause about so-called "duping" exploits. Employing this sort of exploit will lead to permanent bans for anyone directly involved as well as possible reprimands for players who benefit from such exploits from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts." So anything less than what has previously occurred would be favoritism, anything more would be unfair. So at least the perpetrators know what to expect. but the "How will this not happen again?" is worth reading Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:04:00 - [2] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up. But this has happened before http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=626 the result was POS's blown up and accounts permanently banned. As they have stated "As clearly stipulated in our rules and policies, exploiting is strictly prohibited. In our Suspension and Ban Policy there is a special clause about so-called "duping" exploits. Employing this sort of exploit will lead to permanent bans for anyone directly involved as well as possible reprimands for players who benefit from such exploits from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts." So anything less than what has previously occurred would be favoritism, anything more would be unfair. So at least the perpetrators know what to expect. but the "How will this not happen again?" is worth reading This has been brought up multiple times, and it's not applicable as it was an actual software defect in EVE. It was brought to CCP's attention multiple times over a few years until something made CCP finally actually take notice (presumably, the exploit became so widely used it was actually noticeable in some graph or something). What aryth etc did was not utilize a software defect, everything was legal according to game mechanics. because the mechanics were broken. There really isn't much of an argument it clearly comes under the "duping" exploits". CCP screwed up on the FW but had a rule to cover it. Arguing that its not the same when covered by the same rule doesn't mean much. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:14:00 - [3] - Quote Graic Gabtar wrote: ]Nothing free entered the system in this market manipulation. CCP dropped the ball pure and simple. CCP Screegs can carry on all he likes about it in the many posts in this thread but it doesn't change the fact they messed up the FW changes - badly. And how you take stuff off people who have done nothing but master the situation presented before them is beyond me. The problem for CCP is the scale. If it was 5 billion this just would have been patched. CCP were just totally outplayed when they have an immense advantage and they don't like it. You can tell from the judgemental tone in CCP Screegs first post in this thread including the predetermined outcome. As the Op stated "InfernoGÇÖs big design mistake was that it was released with a literal currency fountain, very nearly without limit. Unbeknownst to themselves, CCP had accidentally delved into the world of forex, providing a way to exchange one currency (isk) for another (LP) with only a few checks and balances built into the system." So although it wasn't free per say, it was profitable. The POS exploit wasn't free either you had to buy and set up the POS to get the free stuff. Just as you had to purchase ships ect.. to profit from this exploit. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:26:00 - [4] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: because the mechanics were broken. There really isn't much of an argument it clearly comes under the "duping" exploits". CCP screwed up on the FW but had a rule to cover it. Arguing that its not the same when covered by the same rule doesn't mean much. Edit: Don't make me quote Wikipedia So what about those guys who insurance frauded ships to earn money on them? What about the people who bought PA, back when it refined into nocx? What about the people who exploited CCP fuckups with regards to PI? All of them used legal game mechanics in ways CCP didn't intend, just like the FW mechanics, and all of them did exactly the same thing. Each would be a case by case basis, I am not fully familiar with all of those, nor are they the point of this thread. The basic case is exactly like the POS thread, an exploit was found and massively abused. The circumstances are similar so the punishments should be as well. It was not market manipulation that is player vs player. This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:31:00 - [5] - Quote Graic Gabtar wrote: You get CCP to come out and say and prove: Quote: Free stuff has entered the system. about this matter and I will reconsider. Were more LP received than should have been? Yes. So they got what they should have plus more. So they got Free LP. Go to a store its normally buy 2 get one free. This was buy 1 get 10 free. Free LP entered the game. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 319	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:44:00 - [6] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: The basic case is exactly like the POS thread, an exploit was found and massively abused. The circumstances are similar so the punishments should be as well. It was not market manipulation that is player vs player. This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it. No, it really isn't exactly like the POS thread, since the POS thread was an exploit of an actual software defect. The examples I provided were, however, exactly like "the FW exploit". No bugs were exploited in this thread. The POS thread has its basis in an actual bug. To quote the OP again "Formula The GÇ£costGÇ¥ in this equation was CCPGÇÖs own metric, which you can see by opening your cargo window or your station hangars and looking in the bottom right of the window. Therein lies the heart of the break -- CCPGÇÖs item value calculation was very vulnerable to manipulation. If you picked the right item, loaded hundreds of thousands of them into a Badger, then blew it up in the context of Faction Warfare, you could generate as much LP as you want for practically no cost. As long as you did the math right, the result was foolproof." So it wasn't a software bug that made the equation so easy to manipulate? Please see underlined text. As I said exactly the same. It was a software exploit. Being able to "generate as much LP as you want for practically no cost", sounds like a bug to me. The only real question will be the next series of posts either "CCP to soft on Goonswarm Again" or "CCP kick Goonswarm in the goulies". I doubt it will be "CCP follows precedent". Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:54:00 - [7] - Quote Powers Sa wrote: Frying Doom wrote: This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it. So you're for the players getting to keep the loot? I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 11:59:00 - [8] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: So it wasn't a software bug that made the equation so easy to manipulate? Please see underlined text. That's not a software bug, that's a poorly thought out design. Frying Doom wrote: As I said exactly the same. It was a software exploit. Being able to "generate as much LP as you want for practically no cost", sounds like a bug to me. That's weak design, not a software exploit. Frying Doom wrote: The only real question will be the next series of posts either "CCP to soft on Goonswarm Again" or "CCP kick Goonswarm in the goulies". I doubt it will be "CCP follows precedent". I guess everyone who blew up their ship for insurance money need to get kicked in the nuts, too. And everyone who bought PA and refined them into nocx. And everyone who got "free PI goods for practically no cost". ok what the hell do you think a software bug is besides poorly thought out design. That is what makes bugs, well that and sloppy coding. Just because it doesn't crash the server or make isk magically appear doesn't mean it is not a bug. The POS's had to work to make isk for free as did the LP rip off. They are the same. If this was anyone other than Goonswarm caught doing this you would be first in line asking for their head. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:00:00 - [9] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Powers Sa wrote: Frying Doom wrote: This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it. So you're for the players getting to keep the loot? I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties. The precedence set by everyone who exploited insurance fraud, PI, PA and probably countless others I'm forgetting offhand indicates that the players should keep the loot, since the only thing that was exploited was a design which could use more work. The ferrogel exploit, which you keep referring to, was a pure software bug, the design was sound. The get as much LP as you want practically for free is also a bug of epic proportions, probably alot greater than the POS scam. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:08:00 - [10] - Quote Powers Sa wrote: No isk was removed or added to the economy. No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.

Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:15:00 - [11] - Quote Powers Sa wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Powers Sa wrote: Frying Doom wrote: This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it. So you're for the players getting to keep the loot? I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties. Nope. I don't think you'll ever learn. A design flaw is not an exploit. A design flaw is an oversight. It is an error made by the team thinking it out. It is technically legitimate gameplay. No one was actually harmed or murdered endlessly as a result. People bought things they wanted, for cheaper than they could before. This lead to cheap fleet issue tempests, stabbers, and CNR's. No isk was removed or added to the economy. Manufacturing LP out of thin air is something CCP will need to address more seriously instead of dropping a bandaid on it like they do with titan fixes and other major glaring holes. If you halfass something, someone will figure it out and engineer a way to take advantage of it. Just like we do with your posting. Thought I would add to this one as you state Design flaw = error but errors are not bugs. So quick Wikipedia entry for you so you can learn "A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways. Most bugs arise from mistakes and errors made by people in either a program's source code or its design, and a few are caused by compilers producing incorrect code. A program that contains a large number of bugs, and/or bugs that seriously interfere with its functionality, is said to be buggy. Reports detailing bugs in a program are commonly known as bug reports, fault reports, problem reports, trouble reports, change requests, and so forth." So according to Wikipedia Error does equal bug. Did you learn yet? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:19:00 - [12] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Powers Sa wrote: No isk was removed or added to the economy. No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug. Actually, isk was removed from the economy due to the LP isk sink. Well you need to argue with Powers SA about that. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:24:00 - [13] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Hence, software bug vs design flaw. A design flaw is a software bug and is classed as an exploit. Frying Doom wrote: If this was anyone other than Goonswarm caught doing this you would be first in line asking for their head. I would assume they'd get the same treatment as those who exploited the insurance fraud mechanic, the PA refining into nocx mechanic, and the POS stuff refines into PI mechanic. As stated before it was the size of the matter and the numbers involved. the POS was by 7 corps, this was by 1 alliance and very deliberate, you can not say all the others PI and insurance fraud were all deliberate. Hell I lost ships to stupidity and got insurance but I did not blow up hundreds and post it in General Discussion. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 320	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:29:00 - [14] - Quote Powers Sa wrote: Anyone can edit wikipedia. And billions have learned to read. Your point? Just for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:36:00 - [15] - Quote Actually this is kind of funny even though everything wikipedia, dictionaries and CCP's rules are against Goonswarm's interpretation of this, they soldier on. Have to give them points for trying especially when there is so clear a precedent. Reminds me of the expression to do with excrement and a hill Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:37:00 - [16] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: As stated before it was the size of the matter and the numbers involved. the POS was by 7 corps, this was by 1 alliance and very deliberate, you can not say all the others PI and insurance fraud were all deliberate. 1) "this" was done by 5 people. I had nothing to do with it, even though I wish I had just for the sheer thrill of it. 2) The PI were very deliberate, the effects are still felt today as a matter of fact. 3) Insurance fraud was very deliberate. You don't platinum insure a ship, undock, accidentally hit selfdestruct, dock up, platinum insure another ship, undock, accidentally hit selfdestruct etc etc etc hundreds of times, do you? Frying Doom wrote: Hell I lost ships to stupidity and got insurance but I did not blow up hundreds and post it in General Discussion. So what you're saying is, it would have been better to just use the feature on a low scale and not tell CCP about it, and let them find out about it in a few years? Like the POS bug you keep talking about? Umm maybe a petition and then not using the exploit would have been better, you know making the game better by reporting bugs. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 12:58:00 - [17] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Umm maybe a petition and then not using the exploit would have been better, you know making the game better by reporting bugs. It was reported, multiple times, while it was on sisi. CCP released it anyways. So the bug was reported multiple time on SiSi and these guys just went "well they haven't fixed it before release, so we will exploit it." And you are now arguing they shouldn't be banned, the isk gotten shouldn't be forfeit and the goods bought with the LP bug should be confiscated. That is as bad as it gets. Have said it before the POS exploit and this punishment should be the same. Anything less is favoritism and anything more is too harsh. CCP the precedent exists, use it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:08:00 - [18] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: The precedence they set in insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans, which was the same thing as this case? Or the POS exploit, which was the exploitation of a programming bug? Will save time and just say this was also a programming bug as explained alot above. The PI, insurance thing you use in multiple posts now were fixed, with a lot of people doing it a bit, not a handful pushing it beyond all reason. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:12:00 - [19] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Danfen Fenix wrote: Why the on release did they still proceed to exploit it? You surely can not be argueing that they should get off scott free even thought it was released in that state, when they knew perfectly well it would be deemed an exploit? If they hadn't shown CCP the extend to which it could be taken, then chances are CCP would've done just like they did with the ferrogel duplication case, let it sit in the game for years while everyone else used the game mechanic to its fullest extent. So now your arguing that because they used a bug with wild abandon they were just showing CCP and should be heroes? Precedent exists for this behavior and should be used. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:18:00 - [20] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Oisin Sandovar wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Lon list of meaningless dribble. Then you haven't read or reflected on the things that Sreegs has said. One day you'll run afoul and will be permabanned. I await that day sir. So you're saying that the insurance fraud, PI and PA were different from this case? How? Frying Doom wrote: Lord Zim wrote: The precedence they set in insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans, which was the same thing as this case? Or the POS exploit, which was the exploitation of a programming bug? Will save time and just say this was also a programming bug as explained alot above. The PI, insurance thing you use in multiple posts now were fixed, with a lot of people doing it a bit, not a handful pushing it beyond all reason. The PI, PA and insurance thing was not a programming bug, it was a design flaw, same goes for tracking titans. None of them were programming bugs, since they were performing exactly the way they were designed. All the details for how things worked were publically available, with CCP-endorsed explanations saying "this is how this works". The POS bug you tout did not do what CCP said was how it worked. So if that is the argument you wish to put forward please show me the Dev blog that states that you can shoot ships you have deliberately filled with goods that the valuer, prices higher than they are to get more LP than you should. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.

Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:21:00 - [21] - Quote captain foivos wrote: Frying Doom wrote: So if that is the argument you wish to put forward please show me the Dev blog that states that you can shoot ships you have deliberately filled with goods that the valuer, prices higher than they are to get more LP than you should. Since when was it a rule you can't blow any of your own things up? Especially for profit, I might add. Is this where I point to Lord Zim's insurance fraud? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 321	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:38:00 - [22] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Danfen Fenix wrote: Lord Zim wrote: You mean the nothing which happened to any one specific person after insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans were tweaked to try to avoid undesirable behavior? Ok. So say someone gets away with murder. Could be they have a good laywer, there is little evidence, or it's simply the judges decision. Are you saying everyone should get away with murder, simply due to that case? People constantly complain that CCP does nothing. Well looky here...they've done something. HTFU. Real life != EVE Online. And there should be absolutely no lack of "evidence" in these cases. The only difference between this case and insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans have been the aftermath of CCP's butterfinger effect. I agree completely with you CCP has butterfingered alot. Stand with Lord Zim and show CCP that no more butterfingering will be tolerated. Precedent exists they should use it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 327	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:50:00 - [23] - Quote Enaris Kerle wrote: Frying Doom wrote: Or that exploiting a bug like the POS exploit with CCP giving permanent bans and destroying POS's wasn't a big enough hint? The basic fact is they did things that the PI, insurance and all the other alterations showed CCP considered bad, adding to this they exploited a bug like the POS bug to extremes. I've pointed out repeatedly how there's a qualitative difference between ferrogel duping and PI/Insurance Fraud/Pax. You pretend it's exactly the same. Not even CCP agrees with you, as is obvious from the fact that the guys who duped ferrogel got banned and the ones who blew up their ships to collect insurance didn't. yes there is a difference the POS one was done extensively by a small group of people in a blatent disregard for any form of reason. Kind of like this LP bug. The insurance PI ect.. were good warning posts, not to be a complete idiot before getting to the level of the POS guys. The LP guys flew straight past the warnings and off the cliff with the POS guys. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
Frying Doom Zat's Affiliated Traders 327	Posted - 2012.06.24 13:53:00 - [24] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Again, undocumented programming bug != well documented and public game mechanic. If it was a well documented game mechanic, why was it reported to be a bug? because even though they documented it, it was still a bug. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20250628/0701
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.